[We now have a NEW POST taking us up to February 1, 2015. This post will be retired from service.]
THE AUTUMN 2014 UPDATE
Dear Donors,
Together, we reached our goal of $100,000 to pay the November 1 legal bill 11 days ahead of schedule!
Thank you Canadian donors from coast to coast and our friends from around the world for your generosity, support and determination — and especially for not being afraid.
The name of our non-profit corporation is the “Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty.”
We were very deliberate in including in our name the word “sovereignty”, which forms a cornerstone of our Claims against the Government of Canada.
Canada and dozens of other countries throughout the world gave into a bully because their “leaders” were afraid of harm caused by a trading “partner” — and they gave their sovereignties away.
Help us convince by example the Leaders and Governments of all countries worldwide that they should return their sovereignties back to their Peoples.
Please continue to support our lawsuit.
“Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.” (Helen Keller)
— Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, and the ADCS-ADSC team
Chers donateurs,
Ensemble, nous avons atteint notre but d’amasser 100 000 $ pour payer notre facture légale du 1er novembre 11 jours d’avance !
Un gros merci à vous, donateurs canadiens, et à nos amis de tous les coins du monde pour votre grande générosité, soutien et détermination. Et surtout pour votre courage.
Le nom de notre organisme sans but lucratif est « l’Alliance pour la défense de la souveraineté canadienne ».
Nous avons choisi délibérément le mot « souveraineté » puisqu’il constitue la base fondamentale de nos revendications envers le gouvernement du Canada.
Le Canada et des dizaines d’autres pays se sont pliés devant l’intimidation des États-Unis parce que leurs « leaders » ont eu peur des menaces de notre « partenaire » commercial. Ils ont donc vendu leur souveraineté à rabais.
Aidez-nous à convaincre les dirigeants et les gouvernements de tous ces pays qu’ils se doivent de remettre leur souveraineté à leurs peuples.
S’il vous plaît, continuez à soutenir notre cause.
« Seuls, nous pouvons faire si peu. Ensemble, nous pouvons faire beaucoup. » (Helen Keller)
— Ginny, Gwen et toute l’équipe de l’ADCS-ADSC
DONATE to www.adcs-adsc.ca (ADSC en français).
@George
I agree that being asked place of birth is going to be the tricky question that causes a lot of OMG moments. As long as they are just asking the vague “US person” question most people will say no–often without even thinking about it–because they don’t see themselves as “US persons” (whatever that even means) but a place of birth is harder to get around. I just noticed something about Scotiabank’s application which I’ll comment on in another thread.
@Northern Shrike. I stand corrected, you’re right. But the banks would still squeal like stuck pigs if there were no IGA and they were back between a rock and a hard place, IMHO.
@ George. FWIW I’ve already written to the NDP suggesting they try to help, also to two other organizations to which I belong — Civil Liberties Association and Council of Canadians. No replies from any of them as yet, but I provided all of them with Stephen’s email address and urged them to contact him to help however they can. Emphasizing that the IGA’s violation of the Charter rights of US persons resident in Canada sets a precedent for the violation of Charter rights of ALL Canadians and especially all naturalized Canadians of whatever origin. Since the Tories made inroads in the immigrant population in the last election, that latter point is important for the NDP and Liberals to make with those communities. If they’re smart and astute enough to connect those dots, which honestly some days I despair of their being, both of them … Please if any of you are members of the NDP, Council of Canadians, and/or the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I urge you to write an appeal to them. The more members who hammer them with this request, the better chance they’ll pay attention. I hope. Though I do have it in writing from Paul Dewar, my NDP MP, that the party is going to hold the Tories to account on charter, privacy and sovereignty violations arising from the IGA during the next election campaign. But that doesn’t help with fund-raising for the charter challenge. Perhaps there are legal or political reasons for the opposition parties not to get directly involved in a charter challenge, but that’s not an issue for CCLA nor for CoC, the latter is already involved in raising money with the Canadian Students Federation for a Charter Challenge against the “Fair Elections Act.” I know; I got the funding request by email from them.
I’m only one member of these organizations and can’t achieve this on my own; we need more members of those organizations to write to them about this issue and the need for fund-raising for the Charter challenge.
I’m part of what I hope is or will be a silent majority contributing to this cause. I’ve written my Tory MP making clear that I, and my Canadian-only partner, will be voting strategically next election, rather than splitting the vote by voting for a no-hoper third party candidate as we did last time. I’ve made financial contributions – the third one so far today. I have no problem swearing that I’m not a U.S. person and would probably not be identified as one (born in Canada, one U.S. parent, and absolutely no U.S. ties). I’m angry that a foreign government claims the right to interfere with my ability to live according to the laws of the country of my birth, residence, and sole citizenship. But I’m absolutely, incandescently, furious that the Harper government refuses to acknowledge my rights to the normal protections of Canadian citizenship. I can’t believe that the very, very many people in my situation (or similar ones) won’t feel the same way when they realize what’s happening.
@Stephen Kish, Its 2 August. My seventh contribution to ADCS has gone in the post so you should have it in a week……with no fixed return address. 😉
How long did we have to raise $250,000? Two Months? So 12 months for $400,000, simples…..
I gulped, I paused, I feel good….
@Schubert1975, you are spot on with the NDP and that other members need to hammer the point. If someone is not a member of the party they should formally join so they can lobby as a NDP member on party business.
Politically, this looks like a wonderful hammer to pound the Torries with so they should want to help directly or indirectly. I would think they have high net worth donors they could steer to such an effort. It would be great if NDP would do an email to its members.
Secondly, thank you for all you are doing.
@ADCS, is there anything in the works to reclaim damages on victory? A damage award could help funding efforts in other area like with an EU challenge.
Assuming that an initial filing in Court will be soon. Filing the papers will be a great morale boost and also generate publicity.
@ADCS, “Thank you — your donation was a real morale booster on a very tough day. ”
Let me add a Thank You from across the pond to that Canadian Donor!!
@ADCS, yesterday the first of August was a “tough day.” Today the second of August is a righteous day.
I do hope that the litigation is successful and that your lawyer is at least able to obtain an injunction from the judge where he files his initial complaint. An injunction forbidding Canada’s implementation of FATCA during the legal proceedings would be just what we need. In fact, it would be useful to those considering legal action in other countries, we could cite such a decision, and if it contained the judge’s initial legal conclusions we could certainly use it abroad in terms of comparative constitutional law.
I have another question/suggestion. Would it be worth registering ADCS as a political party? Would contributions to the party be deductible in Canada?
Also, is the strategy based only upon trying to block FATCA or also obtain damages? Maybe that question was already answered somewhere else. Can one request a jury trial in a Canadian federal civil case?
George, Thanks for staying with us after the big gulp. I know that this has been and still is a lot for everyone to digest.
–We are not pursuing this litigation to go after damages to those harmed or will be harmed by FATCA We want to kill the FATCA-IGA implementation Act and by doing so deal a lethal blow to FATCA.
–Regarding the Canadian political process, I personally will not vote for the party that turned us over to a foreign government. However, have any of you obtained confirmation from an opposition party leader that, if elected, their government would kill ALL of the IGA enabling act? I recall a phone conversation with a Democrats Abroad leader who said “Stephen, you really don’t want to kill ALL of FATCA?” When I explained to him that that in fact was my position, the phone discussion abruptly ended. Readers know the clear position of ADCS on FATCA.
–When do we file? As soon as we can, but with carefully thought out arguments. I know that the Charter violation(s) appear to be so obvious to all, but the arguments re: Charter violation and other “laws” possibly contradicted are not straightforward. This is one of the reasons why we retained Joe Arvay.
I can’t give you a timeline on filing. We already have journalists who know us and repeatedly contact us for updates on this. The day we file papers will be the first event of ADCS that the press (and the Government of Canada) will consider newsworthy — a day that should increase future donations.
Some papers filed in court will include statements from plaintiffs. I agree with EmBee that the plaintiffs, including those who will “announce” to the world their IRS non-compliance and resistance, are the real heroes. Very few have offered to be plaintiffs and I appreciate that this is a lot to ask. The “stories” of these brave Canadians will have to be prepared for the filings.
Jefferson, An injunction approach, for which there are pros and cons, has been discussed but I can’t release information on this.
—Some of us actually considered registering as a new political party, but we decided, I think correctly, to limit the focus.
—As you also know, I have tried to enlist the support of attorneys in other countries to litigate against FATCA, but was not successful. By the way, during our extensive due diligence on selection of litigator, we encountered experienced lawyers in Canada who initially expressed willingness to take on our fight, but then had to withdraw the offer. This was not an issue with Joe Arvay’s Vancouver law firm.
Fundraising: We have already consulted from the beginning with a professional fundraiser who advised us not to spend monies (which we don’t have) on expensive newspaper or radio ads etc. but to keep concentrating on getting stories out to the public, but especially to small community newspapers. Yes, the website will be updated. It just takes time.
We have been stingy on all of our expenses and don’t even have a chequebook. As GwEvil (please know that there would be no ADCS without kind GwEvil) mentioned, a benefactor has paid, so far, for all the costs to set up and maintain ADCS and its website. We have issued only a single bank draft, to pay the retainer fee, with the only other charges automatically taken from us by PayPal and the bank for transactions.
Try not to think of the total litigation cost, and help us chip away at what we need to keep the lawsuit moving. We have the time to do this.
@Kish lawyers I contacted here weren’t interested. The excuses I got were:
1. The treaty trumps the Constitution (even though the IGA is no treaty and article 2 of the Swiss Constitution says that the Confederation defends the rights and interests of the people… and goes on to list those rights in the next several dozen articles).
2. The master nationality rule is as to international private law, but taxation is in the realm of international public law.
Noone filed suit within 30 days of the application law being approved by parliament, and the optional referendum failed to obtain enough signatures. Now the only legal option is for someone to have standing (gets screwed by FATCA), then they can sue.
@Calgary411 – The biggest challenge in getting more of the ‘million’ donating is simplifying the FATCA argument without legalese and accounting terms into a 10 second easily understandable ideal.
A message that FATCA affects all Canadians because the US can move the goal posts at any time. Because you think you’re not affected by FATCA today doesn’t mean you won’t in future.
There must be someone in this blog who has the skills to make FATCA easily understandable and the threat it represents to all Canadians into basically a sound byte.
@Stephen Kish, bear with us in the proverbial peanut gallery when we ask and keep asking questions about injunctions or offer up ideas. We all know you guys are working real hard, but offerring up ideas gives us strength by being proactive.
A message that FATCA affects all Canadians because the US can move the goal posts at any time.
is a good start, Don. Thanks.
@Calgary or “Yesterday I thought I was a Canadian Citizen, today I am called a US Person.”
@Don
According to FATCA, Canada’s a tax haven to which every Canadian is complicit.
I want that tee-shirt, George.
—To the Canadian who sent ADCS a few minutes ago yet another email transfer: Thank you for your continued trust.
—This morning I spoke to Lynne Blaze at the hospital. She is still going through a very difficult time and thanks everyone for their kind thoughts. She asks that we should focus especially on those readers of Brock and Sandbox who, unlike the Canadian above, have never donated. Lynne refuses to accept the possibility that we will not raise the funds we need.
Stephen,
Thanks for the update on continued email transfers from those who believe in the Charter Challenge.
…sounds like our Lynne.
Hope each day finds you stronger, Lynne / Blaze.
@GwEvil
Thanks for your detailed reply – and for all you’re doing to make this happen!
Agree with and trust the ADCS team totally; made several contributions and will continue to do so. In addition to many letters to MP’s I’ve been writing consistently to several journalists and some of them will probably increase coverage as this heats up. I write these on a regular basis and suggest new hooks and angles to get their interest.
Regarding other possible outreach items, I’ll reach out to ADCA via email later on in August to volunteer further help (being out of town & mostly offline till then).
The current bee in my bonnet was the concept of Members of Parliament standing as plaintiffs – idea inspired by the recent Congressional legal action against Obama. Of course that is up to the ADCS legal counsel and he’s the top lawyer in Canada for this kind of action. I’m delighted Arvay is engaged. In my experience, you get what you pay for.
“Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”
– Robert Goodloe Harper
Wondering,
Thank you for all of your thoughts — I pasted your suggestions (and those of others) into a file that we can act on later.
Regarding that bee of yours, please do not assume that your bee in bonnet issue is not being actively discussed at the moment.
[… just now a PayPal from a name I do not know…. inching… inching…]
Hi Atticus,
Yes, I realize celebrities can afford the extra cost of being duals, but some might be interested in supporting the political cause. Although they would surely want to donate anonymously, since it’s probably not a great career move to do so publicly right now.
Ideas to get more $ for ADCS? @Stephen above provides a glimpse of funding so far.
A few ideas.
1) Make IBS website more relevant to the different groups impacted – thus helping to attract more attention. Here are ideas for new sections under “Ask your Questions About” – these should be easy to start up:
a) You Are Complying/US Tax Minimisation
b) Business Ownership/Business Executive
Let’s not forget there are people in the above categories who have money that we should attract to IBS and attract to contribute to ADCS.
Web. I did forward some suggestions helping it appear in search engines. Right now the ADCS site appears page 1, #1 for: “Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty.” If there is no web link, that is what we need to tell people to put into Google. “ADCS” is bottom of page 7. The stats say people are putting in “FATCA Canada.” ADCS does not rank for that, yet IBS is #3. The message boards are helping the rankings for IBS. The ADCS site may benefit from a message board as well. Or, do we aim to send people through IBS which has very good links/visibility into ADCS?
The text on the homepage of ADCS under Mandate appear pre IGA. I would favour a bit more direct language. How about something like this as the next paragraph under the mandate:
“Yesterday I thought I was a Canadian Citizen, today I am called a US Person. My “Oh My God” moment: the U.S. wants me to report my income and jointly owned assets to the IRS and pay U.S. tax. I have not filed U.S. tax and there are unbelievable U.S. penalties! The Canadian-US Tax treaty only provides limited protection from double taxation. What should I do?”
Please help ADCS protect Canadian sovereignty by donating in support of our legal challenge to Canadian government law that legalises U.S. FATCA. The Canadian IGA that makes FATCA Canadian law requires Canadian financial institutions to ask account holders if they are US Persons, as of 1 July 2014. The banks then must report this information to the CRA who will report Canadian financial details to the American IRS. If account holders misinform the banks about if they are a US Person, or refuse to tell, then FATCA law proscribes witholding 30% of the account value, even if no U.S. tax is owed!
ADCS is confident that we have a fighting good case that the Canadian IGA will not hold up to our Constitutional challenge. The Canadian Charter prohibits discrimination based on “national or ethnic origin.” As of 3 August 2014 ADCS retained Constitutional litigator Joseph Arvay to commence legal proceedings in the courts. The effort may take some time and require significant ongoing financial support. Spread the word, and donate today. For message boards on these topics see The Isaac Brock Society.
[One might only hope that this would help the Australia situation where I have not found one press article on the controversy of FATCA.]
@ JC,
I am a bit confused / puzzled re. your statement “If account holders misinform the banks about if they are a US Person . . . then FATCA law proscribes witholding 30% of the account value, even if no U.S. tax is owed!” as I thought Canada will not collect for the IRS. If this is true, how will the IRS acquire 30% of the account value?
Sasha You can relax. There is no withholding on Canadian banks. All Canadian banks have registered. The worst thing that can happen is that your name and number are turned over to the IRS and the IRS sends you a nasty letter. So what. They can’t come and take your money. There is a lot of misinformation out there. It doesn’t help.
@KalC You are talking about Witholdings on US source payments to FFI that are not compliant. The FFI are considered compliant so no worries there. FATCA is very clear about witholding 30% of the account value for “recalcitrant” holders who are not truthful when asked if they are a USP, and do not provide details as requested. However, there is a clause in the Canadian-US Tax treaty that says the CRA will not collect debts on behalf of the IRS. So it would appear not a worry for Canadians. Yet will the U.S. allow this exception when account holders in every other country would face such witholdings.
Let’s remember that the U.S. IRS considers Canada part of its sovereign territory for which its laws may apply. Just look what they did with FATCA and the Canadian IGA. There is nothing stopping the US from enacting new laws which they think would apply. Nothing stopping them perhaps other than ADCS at the moment.
So Calgary441 asked me an interesting question awhile back: which is dominant the Canadian-US tax treaty or the Canadian IGA. That is exactly where this 30% witholdings might come into play. Perhaps the tax treaty prevails, for now.
@JC
“FATCA is very clear about witholding 30% of the account value for “recalcitrant” holders who are not truthful when asked if they are a USP, ”
Do you know who is actually going to make the determination that someone is “not truthful when asked if they are a USP”?
Presumably with the IGA the bank won’t be communicating directly w/the IRS to make that determination. And presumably the bank and the Canadian government–Canadian institutions–are not qualified to make that determination.
If someone claims they are not a USP who actually makes the final determination that they are?